The competency conversation does most of the work

It is the highest yield hour in the process.

A structured conversation with the applicant about the work resolves more questions than any quantity of document review. It tests authenticity, fills gaps in the written evidence, establishes depth of understanding, and surfaces range that the applicant did not think to document.

It works when the questions are about specific instances rather than about the standard. Asking somebody to describe a time the process did not go as expected, and what they did, produces evidence of judgement that no document contains. Asking whether they can perform a unit of competency produces a yes.

It has to be recorded to be usable. A conversation that convinced the assessor and left no record has produced a judgement that cannot be supported later, and recognition decisions are exactly the ones that get examined afterwards.

It is also where the applicant experience is largely determined. A conversation conducted as an interrogation produces defensive answers and a poor file; one conducted as a professional discussion between people who know the work produces both better evidence and a person who did not find the process humiliating.

The competency conversation also serves a purpose for the applicant that is easy to overlook. Many people who apply for recognition have never had their working knowledge taken seriously by an institution, and a conversation in which somebody who understands the work engages with what they know is frequently reported as the most valuable part of the process regardless of the outcome.